Allergological Evaluation of Synthetic Skin Cleansers

  • J. Ring
  • R. Gollhausen
Conference paper
Part of the Griesbach Conference book series (GRIESBACH)

Abstract

Surfactants are contained in many products handled in everyday life (Table 1). Skin care products are usually listed among “Cosmetics” in international studies [1, 9, 16, 17, 22, 28, 34]. The risk index of cosmetics that derives from a large-scale FDA study shows surfactants in all the risk categories, from “high” (bath additives), through “medium” (soap), to “low” (shampoos) (Table 2). This scatter in the risk gradings is in itself a reason why general conclusions are difficult to draw.

Keywords

Contact Dermatitis Patch Test Sodium Lauryl Sulphate Allergic Contact Dermatitis Contact Allergy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adam WE, Neumann K (1980) Konstitution und Eigenschaften von Tensiden. Fette, Seifen, Anstrichmittel 83: 367–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alchangyan LV (1976) Selisskii. Khim Promst (Moscow) 8: 635Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alomar A, Camarasa IG, Barnadas M (1983) Addition’s disease and contact dermatitis from mercury in a soap. Contact Dermatitis 9: 76–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anonymous. Tabulation of Cosmetic Product Experience Report. (Jan. 1974-June 1975). Food & Drug Administration, Division of Cosmetic Technology, Washington DC, USA, 200 C’street SWGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alomar A, Camarasa IG, Barnadas M. Cosmetic-related injuries: A MODS study of NEISS. July 1st 1977 to June 30th 1978. National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, Springfield, 22161, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alomar A, Camarasa IG, Barnadas M. An investigation of Consumers perception of adverse reactions to cosmetics products. (PB-242 480) Westat Inc. Prepared for Food and Drug Administration. June 1975. National Technical Information US Department of Commerce, Springfield, 22161, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alomar A, Camarasa IG, Barnadas M. Reactions of the skin to cosmetic and toiletry products (1979). Consumers’ Association, 14 Buckingham Street. London WC2Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baer RL, Rosenthal SA (1954) The germicidal action in human skin of soap containing tetramethylthiuram disulfide. J Invest Dermatol 23: 193–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bartnik F, Künstler K (1986) Biological effects, toxicology and human safety. In: Falbe J (ed) Surfactants in consumer products. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 475–503Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blank IH (1956) Allergie hypersensitivity to an antiseptic soap. J Amer Med Ass 160: 1225–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borelli S, Manok M (1961) Ergebnisse von Untersuchungen bei Berufsanfängem im Friseurgewerbe. Dermatosen Beruf Umw 9: 271–274Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calnan CD (1964) The climate of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 44: 33–43Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conner DS (1977) Identification of certain sultones as the sensitizers in an alkyl ethoxy sulfate. Fette, Seifen, Anstrichmittel 77: 25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooke MA, Kurva AR (1975) Colophony sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 1: 192–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dick DC, Adams RH (1979) Allergic contact dermatitis from monosulfiram (Tetmosol) soap. Contact Dermatitis 5: 199–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Estrin NF (ed) (1984) The cosmetic industry. Scientific and regulatory foundations. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fiedler HP, Umbach W (1986) Cosmetics and toiletries. In: Falbe J (ed) Surfactants in consumer products. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 352–397Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1979) The soap chamber test. A new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Amer Acad Dermatol 1: 35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gollhausen R, Kligman AM (1985) Human assay for identifiying substances which induce non-allergic contact uriticaria: the NICU-test. Contact Dermatitis 13: 98–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jensen ME (1970) Severe dermatitis and “biological” detergents. Brit Med J 1: 299–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jordan WP Jr (1981) Contact dermatitis from D & C yellow 11 dye in a toilet bar soap. J Amer Acad Derm 4: 613–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kligman AM, Epstein W (1975) Updating the maximization test for identifying contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1: 231–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Magnusson B, Gilie O (1973) Allergic contact dermatitis from a dishwashing liquid containing lauryl ether sulphate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 53: 136–149Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maibach HI, Akerson JM, Marzulli FN, Wenninger J, Greif M, Hjorth N, Andersen KE, Wilkinson DS (1980) Test concentrations and vehicles for dermathological testing of cosmetic ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 6: 369–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malten KE, Schutter K, von Senden KG, Spruit D (1969) Nickel sensitization and detergents. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 49: 10–13Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mathias CGT (1982) Pigmented cosmetic dermatitis from contact allergy to a toilet soap containing chromium. Contact Dermatitis 8: 29–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Muston HL, BHoss JM, Summerly R (1977) Dermatitis from Ammonyx LO, constituent of surgical scrub. Contact Dermatitis 3: 347–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nater JP, de Groot AC, Liem DH (eds) (1985) Unwanted effects of cosmetics and drugs used in dermatology. 2nd ed. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ngangu Z, Samsoen M, Foussereau J (1983) Einige Aspekte zur Kosmetika-Allergie in Straßburg. Dermatosen Beruf Umw 31: 126–130Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ring J, Fröhlich HH (1985) Wirkstoffe in der Dermatologie. 2nd ed. Springer, BeriinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ring J (1988) Angewandte Allergologie, 2nd ed. MMV-Vieweg, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Romaguera C, Camarasa JMG, Alomar A, Grimalt F (1983) Patch tests with allergens related to cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 9: 167–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rothenborg HW, Hjorth N (1968) Allergy to perfumes from toilet soaps and detergents in patients with dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 97: 417–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schwarz E (1962) Symp Dermatol 1: 250Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sylvest B, Hjorth N, Magnusson B (1975) Lauryl ether sulphate dermatitis in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 1: 359–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thyresson N, Lodin A, Nilzen A (1956) Eczema of the hands due to triethanolamine in cosmetic hand lotions for housewives. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 36: 355–359Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Van Haute N, Dooms-Goossens A (1983) Shampoo dermatitis due to cocobetaine and soudium lauryl ether sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 9: 169–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Verbov JL (1969) Contact dermatitis from Miranols. Trans St John’s Hosp Derm Soc (Lond) 55: 192–197Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vinson LJ, Choman BR (1960) J Soc Cosmet Chem 11: 127Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Walker AP, Ashforth OK, Davies RE, Newman EA, Ritz HL (1973) Some characteristics of the sensitizer in alkyl ethoxy sulphate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 43: 141–144Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weasver JE (1983) Dose respnse relationships in delayed hypersensitivity to quinoline dyes. Contact Dermatitis 9: 309–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    White IR, Lewis J, Alami AE (1985) Possible adverse reactions to an enzyme containing washing powder. Contact Dermatitis 13: 175–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Ring
  • R. Gollhausen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations